Post navigation

Breaking — Florida Judge rules health care law unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled Monday that the Obama administration’s health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that sued to block it. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinsonaccepted without trial the states’ argument that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

And more to the point

The next stop is likely the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge inVirginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution.

In his ruling, Vinson went further than the Virginia judge and declared the entire health care law unconstitutional. (emphasis added)

In short….WE WON….but it’ll be short lived as the court process will continue. Don’t kid yourself tho — the Supremes will take notice that 27 states (including Virginia with the 26) have suits against the health care law…that’ll be pretty hard to ignore…..stay tuned.

Related

I’m all for taking care of sick people but I don’t like the mandate that in order to be alive in the USA you must pay money for insurance. It’s stupid. I guess that is how they planned to pay for it but they should have just raised taxes at somepoint.

Where are all the na sayers that bitched about Jackley getting on board with this suit and that the suit was DOA. Consitutional Truth = 27, Pinheads = 0. This will be interesting whether the USSC actually looks at the Constitution or plays the liberal card. If USSC reverses, look for the House to draft a Constitutional Amendment with the Senate to follow after the 2012 elections.

Good news. TIme for our state legslators to just shut up about any new health care legislation. Best to pass a resolution supporting our participation in the law suit and be sure to fund it. Move on with real business.

Alice, this isn’t real business???? It will bankrupt our country. It was passed over the people’s wishes and with backroom deals, lies, corruption, you know, the typical stuff of this administration. This will affect every single person in this country. And this IS real business.

Along the lines of “damn, I shouldn’t have said that”:
Washington Times:
“In ruling against President Obama?s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama?s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

?I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ?if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,?? Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson?s ruling, in which he said the ?principal dispute? in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.

Judge Vinson used Mr. Obama?s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could fall within the Constitution ? including then-candidate Obama?s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton?s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance, and Mr. Obama?s did not.

In the heat of the primaries in 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predicted Mr. Obama?s opposition to an individual mandate could come back to haunt him: ?If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he?ll find that it can?t be done without mandates ? but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.?”

You know, even if this is ruled unconstitutionally, it doesnt necessarily mean it will be overturned. Look at DUI checkpoints…ruled an infringement on constitutional rights, but given a pass “for the good of the nation.” Scary line of thought, but i can see the same thing regarding the health care mandates.

yoyo, no, we weren’t doing so great economically before. But this Obamacare is not deficit neutral and there is no money for the entitlements we have now (SS and Medicare and Medicaid), let alone an over trillion dollar monstrosity aptly entitled Obamacare. They gave this unconstitutional bill such a nice name as the Affordable…… What a crock! It is NOT affordable!

In looking at Judge Vinson’s opinion on this, he ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The Democrats who passed this insisted on having a clause that says if part of the law is found unconstitutional then the rest can go into effect. They recognized that without the mandate, the funding could not work (it doesn’t anyway). Because of that clause the judge had to rule that the whole thing was unconstitutional. Not that it matters. This will be appealed to the SCOTUS. I believe Justice Kennedy is the swing vote on this one. I also believe this is one of the reasons he has told President Obama he had no plans to retire.

Where is Bill and the other liberals that were so sure of themselves on Obamacare? They have left the building since the AZ shooter blew up in their face (except Bill he was a wait and see guy). Im still trying to figure out what the left accomplished it the last 2 years. They sacrificed everything for Obamacare and know its looking more and more for nothing. They over played their hand and got thumped for it. Now their Mesia is running to the middle to save his career and didnt give a damn for the left he left on the field of battle to die last election. meand while Dirty Harry and Nancy keep leading their failed efforts.

Moses, please explain how covering preexisting conditions is a good thing. I hear and read people say this all of the time, but they never seem to justify it. Forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions does nothing except to raise the insurance rates for everybody else or force the insurance companies to go broke. So in essence, what you are saying is that everybody else having to pay to cover people who have a condition is a good thing.
This is not insurance. This is coverage. Those are not the same thing.

Name, It is real business for the fed and the fed’s courts. I told you to pass a resolution to support and fund our law suit. But, these little headline grabbers about legislation that somehow compete with the fed’s law are pointless. You want to spend some time on substantive issues? . . . get the budget done first. If you have idle time thereafter, pass any silly notion that comes to mind. Looks like the courts got it figured out. Until the SCOTUS is done there is little for the state to do.

Very interesting what is not being discussing in this blog. What about the idea being passes around by Reps to have a limited-benefit Medicare program? Those currently in Medicare, no change, include those in the 55-65 age group in Medicare with limited benefit, and when those younger than 55 come into the tiered age groups, Medicare would really limited benefit.
I remember Boehner crying that health reform would limit his mom’s care. With this plan, our spiriling health care costs (generally coming from our eldest citizens) will continue to go up unchecked until a lg # of our eldest die (while our national economic profile worsens) while a group decided the limit on what is covered in the 55-65 group? With so many agruing about how the govt shouldn’t be in the health care industry, how can a national plan that will allow rules to be written that say how much care you can have be conscionable?
Eventually it will be-child is born and gets (pick a number) $1,000,000 in lifetime health coverage. Hopefully proven preventive services are free and maybe access to community physical activity locations is free. Otherwise, spend your $1,000,000 wisely child because when it runs out-you’re on your own. The healthier have longer lives compared to the “unhealthy” (by any cause). Natural Selection in its purest form. Sound good to you?
I don’t get it. I think its all about who had the “idea”-Dems or Reps. All boils down to health reform has to happen so change Obamacare where it needs to be changed and get on with implementation.

duggersd, I really hope you don’t develop a chronic disease. Using your logic, insurance companies could say, if you loose your current coverage, “Nope. You’re going to cost us money because you’ve got high blood pressure and you’re probably going to need __ hospitalizations for your ___ probable heart attacks, not to mention costs from the co-morbid conditions that closely follow high BP, and increased visits to the Dr., and increased med costs because you’ll probably need to take ___ meds. So we’re not interested in offering you any ins (except these few REALLY costly plans where you may have to decide between paying your premium or some of your other bills. Sorry and good luck”. This is the status quo for millions of hard-working, patriotic, tax-paying citizens like you and I.
If duggarsd, you are on Medicare, no one is really talking about your coverage or access so your arguement is self-serving and while you have the right to make it, it doesn’t really help the debate. We all need to think of how we all interconnect-it’s how a good society works.
I see the flaws in the “126 million with preexisting condition” calculation but the premise of covering conditions to avoid added cost is sound. You are thinking along on the lines of our current “acute care” system which is killing us. The great preponderance of research in cost containment shows that if you prevent complicaitons by controlling the disease (and there are many cost-effective models that show how to do this), you avoid greater cost plus you have better quality of life.

Please tell me how an insurance company makes money by covering people with preexisting conditions without charging people with that condition more. When I took out life insurance a few years ago, they wanted to know about my blood pressure, cholesterol, weight, etc. They charged me a premium based upon that and my gender. How is that different from a health insurance company? That preexisting condition thing you think is so great and the requirement to cover children has had the effect of companies no longer offering that type of coverage. So how has that been a good thing?

The ins industry, to a degree, leverages covering higher expenses by some (usually those with preexisting conditions) against lower expenses (usually the younger population). We don?t disagree in that people with conditions should expect to pay more than others. The ins industry was behind Obamacare when a bill because they saw lots of $ coming from the currently uninsured (the majority of whom are younger and don?t purchase ins because they don?t see a need). SOMEONE was going to pay to cover the young ones-they didn?t really care who. Their balance sheets could only improve. But that financial gain should only be justified by increased increased coverage of those with preexisting conditions.
Ins companies have been posting phenominal balance sheets. They?re not hurting in any way. Health care ins is a business and without appropriate oversight into its practices, it can abuse its power. Obamacare will spread the risk and benefit of coverage through the nation (to a degree) while mitigting an unchecked business philosophy. I?m all for free enterprise. Wouldn?t be doing what I am if it weren?t for my potential earning power when done with school. The ins industry will survive with a few bumps and less ?fat on its hips?. If they get behind the wellness perspective and prevent disease, their balance sheets could improve from where they are now.
Life ins is optional. The more you have, the more inclined you are to pay to protect it, and the more likely you are to have the resources to buy it. Health ins (and therefore access to care) isn?t an optional luxury and most people need some type of assistance to obtain it (I define ?assisting? as having it as a benefit of employment). Profit is great. But at significant expense to a large # of people is wrong.

perietee or whatever-
You dont understand what pre-existing does do you?
If people carry continous coverage they have nothing to worry about (unless they change to an individual plan which can be ridered for an condition which is wrong). Most people never have an issue with pre x because they have continous coverage. If you health insurance never has an lapse in coverage more then 63 days (or changing from group to individual) you will not have a pre x. What pre x does is prevents people from buying insurance after they know somethings wrong. Your not allowed to by auto insurance after you crash your car for obvious reasons its the same thing. The insurance carrier will knowingly lose money with what your saying. What wrong is people that go from group to individual and get ridered. That needs to be corrected, right DUH?

Continuous coverage ends when jobs change, plants are closed…well you get the idea. Or maybe when BC/BS throws somebody off of their coverage because they end up with something minor like breast cancer.

As one who has a child between 18 and 26, you’d think I like this clause but I don’t. The day my daughter has graduated from college and has a job, she needs to pay her own health insurance. What is with this continuing to teach children to be on the teat, whether it be the government or mine?

With regard to pre-existing conditions, there needs to be a solution. And the GOP has several (re-insurance pool is the one I like the best). They also have several regarding decreasing the cost of medical care (health savings accounts is the one I like the best as it will turn us into customers of doctors/hospitals and not consumers plus their plan to get insurance to the indigent for acute care to decrease use of emergency rooms), And, decreasing the cost of health insurance via allowing policies to be sold across state lines.

The declaration of unconstitutionality of the individual mandate will open up Congress to debate real solutions that will not bankrupt our nation.

Couple of things Troy. That’s great that you would have your children pushed off your insurance. That’s an choice that works for you. Looking back on your own career path, who paid for your health care insurance…guessing taxpayers or the a generous subsidy from a company. Was there a government “Teat” that funded your early career and health care benefits?

Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but so many of your thoughts seem to center on a “I’ve got mine, go get your own” attitude.

Right now the job market for HS and college graduates is not good. Combine that with our statewide love of low paying jobs and high insurance rates provide a less than ideal way to start off.

Selling across state lines? Certainly there couldn’t be any unintended consequences with that plan. Kaiser notes how there would be a very small decrease in spending for consumers. Maybe we can sell our soul to the insurance companies and be the headquarters for large insurance companies. Think of it thousands more of those great call center jobs. It worked for the gambling and banking industries, right?

Lastly, bankrupt the nation? Guessing that there is some disagreement on that statement.

If you?re asking Duh?s opinion, that says a lot.
I like I said, I don?t agree with the impact on 126 million with a preexisting condition claim so not saying Obamacare is going to save everyone. What about all those without continuous coverage or their policy doesn?t cover some basic aspects? When my family looses COBRA access, we?ll be uninsurable because of hx of diabetes, high chol, and high BP. We pay $761/month and that?s a good deal compared to the open market. We couldn?t afford it and we?re considered middle class. Preexisting clauses are how ins companies justify denying coverage.
Agreed, when my kids get their ed under their belt, they?re on their own. I?ve agreed to pay tuition/fees/books for the 1st 2 years of my kids? college-the rest is up to them. And don?t expect to move home-I?ve earned my free time and home. I?ll have given them enough support to launch their life. So why can?t they be on my policy until they get to that phase of young adulthood? Most ed takes a minimum of 4 yrs (so 22 years old), most don?t get their poop in a scoop that fast so it takes longer (and many don?t complete so don?t get the better paying jobs at that age). I?m for reducing the age limit to 23-24.
Ummm-aren?t ins pools and ins exchanges (only intrastate) in Obamacare?

Would YOU give YOU coverage without offering a higher premium? If the answer is yes, then it is apparent you know very little about business. You are a higher risk. And since you have been bashing the insurance companies out there and their profits, I believe in the health insurance industry has a profit margin of around 3% – 4%. That is hardly a huge margin. But then again their investors are not entitled to a profit. The companies are only there to give you health coverage.

Pierrite: Ymous has common sense and seeks common sense answers, not paragraphs upon paragraphs of scholastic theory. The insurance company would never willingly lose money on a pre x, it’s essentially a cash cow for them as they can jack up the premiums whether the rider is plausible or even remotely realistic. Health ins. co’s are like any other ins, mitigate risk while making money on even the littlest of risk. Ins. companies may be making money, but the reserves are for catastrophes. Take a gander at property insurance cos, they have more money than God, but when a hurricaine hits, the balance drops pretty fast. Same thing about the hated oil companies (of which I’m one of them – hater) they have pretty hefty cash balances, but they also spend billions on R & D and development. The crux of my argument is that insurance companies would come out on top by artificially increasing the floor of the basic premium knowing that they’ll be now insuring those ins prohibitive 200 lb overweight, nonexercising, chain smoking, Mickey D’s scarfing individuals

The problem with that is in order to “manage” the risk pool, it is requiring people who do not wish to have health insurance buy it, forcing them to pay for the people who have those preexisting conditions. And how many of those “40 million” are in good health? If there is a large enough percentage with a “preexisting” condition, it will only cause the costs of everybody to go up.

Pierreite, if you can afford to pay your kids tuition, you can afford to pay insurance.
I haven’t paid tuition for either of my kids, both grads and employed and I pay about the same premium as you with my $5000 deduct.

We have yet to use a health policy in our family. It looks to me like I’ve been subsidizing your premium with your health issues. I’d hate to see my rates if every uninsured goes onto my back.

P- As usual, your reading comprehension is subpar. The reserves are for catastrophes, but those reserves are not permitted to go down to a certain level and they are kept up by increasing premiums. You just don’t get it. Premiums and the deficit would skyrocket if Oblablacare came into play. All this posturing is probably moot anyway. Thank God.